GOP turning "American helping American" into Socialism - Is that a national scandal?

[RDD_1210]

you get the same shit with a lot of the Far Left....look at Hungover....ever read that assholes threads?....in many of his threads he sounds just like the people on the right he cant stand....

What is the far left? How do you distinguish far left from just the regular left. I'd love to know who you would consider far left and who is just left.

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

Which politicians today are left and which are far left?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The GOP leadership has worked tirelessly to make their base believe American helping American is "socialism" and should be stopped. The very people helped by Social Security and Medicare believe getting government help is the road to disaster for this country. The GOP's misinformation techniques have worked so well, their base doesn't even understand that Medicare and Social Security are government programs and getting rid of government programs means disaster for them.

Republicans say we should look at Blue States to understand how all the welfare has hurt those states. Only the dollar drain from Blue States is going to Red States. The amount of money difference Red States receive from Blue States pales in comparison to what those in Blue States who are on welfare receive and is staggering.

If Red States were so self sufficient, they wouldn't be working overtime trying to lure Blue State workers to their states. They would train their own people. Only that would be (gasp) "socialism".

People don't want charity. Republicans insist they are better people because they imagine they give more to charity. Remember that story Paul Ryan plagiarized? About the little boy who did't want to be given school lunch? Well that's the thing. A little charity does nothing. Without the drain of money from Blue States to Red States, Blue States would have balanced budgets and would still be helping Blue State Citizens. It's because of that aid Blue States are able to give to their citizens that Red States are able to bleed money from those Blue States who earned it.

Perhaps we need some tough love and stop funding Red States. The only problem with that is the GOP leadership would simply let their middle class and poor die. We know that from the millions left off Medicare Expansion. That will probably cost 10,000 deaths a year in Red States.

When you define helping as taking someone's money by force and giving it to someone else I'd say it's a problem.

Taxes are constitutional. Why do you hate he constitution?

I don't hate anything. That's your schtick not mine.

Sooner or later enough has to be enough doesn't it?

Tell me how much of your income should be taken from you to "help" others?

 

[Iceweasel]

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

I think that's spot on. JFK was considered liberal back in the day but would barely fit the bill today. The progressives have taken over the party and if you don't agree with them fully, your are a rightwing nut case. If you oppose almost everything and prefer traditional values then you are an extremist rightwing hate monger.

 

[RDD_1210]

When you define helping as taking someone's money by force and giving it to someone else I'd say it's a problem.

Taxes are constitutional. Why do you hate he constitution?

I don't hate anything. That's your schtick not mine.

Sooner or later enough has to be enough doesn't it?

Tell me how much of your income should be taken from you to "help" others?

My schtick?

I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.

I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

 

[Darkwind]

What is the far left? How do you distinguish far left from just the regular left. I'd love to know who you would consider far left and who is just left.

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

Which politicians today are left and which are far left?

30 years ago, each one of them would be considered left of center. By todays standards, they are all left or moderate right at best, and the extreme left would be those who act and believe as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer. Moderate leftists would be the Paul Ryans and John Boeners. In all honesty, I don't know that there is a true right of center politican in all of our federal government.

 

[RDD_1210]

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

I think that's spot on. JFK was considered liberal back in the day but would barely fit the bill today. The progressives have taken over the party and if you don't agree with them fully, your are a rightwing nut case. If you oppose almost everything and prefer traditional values then you are an extremist rightwing hate monger.

Just like Ronald Regan would be consider at best a RINO today.

 

[RDD_1210]

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

Which politicians today are left and which are far left?

30 years ago, each one of them would be considered left of center. By todays standards, they are all left or moderate right at best, and the extreme left would be those who act and believe as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer. Moderate leftists would be the Paul Ryans and John Boeners. In all honesty, I don't know that there is a true right of center politican in all of our federal government.

Wow, if Paul Ryan is a lefty to you......someone like Bernie Sanders must seem like the anti-christ he's so far left.

 

[Darkwind]

30 years ago, those who are moderately right leaning today would be considered the 'left'. Those who are moderately left today would be considered the fringe left then, and those who are progressive and think in terms of government as mother, would have had their mental stability called into question.

So, to answer your question, just about everyone who is not to the far right of the current spectrum (which would have been a moderate right 30 years ago).

I think that's spot on. JFK was considered liberal back in the day but would barely fit the bill today. The progressives have taken over the party and if you don't agree with them fully, your are a rightwing nut case. If you oppose almost everything and prefer traditional values then you are an extremist rightwing hate monger.

Through the use of handouts for votes, the country has been steadily marching leftward for a very long time. People won't always vote for what is best for the country, but will mostly vote for their own greed. A strategy that has been employed by democrats successfully for more than a century.

 

[Darkwind]

Which politicians today are left and which are far left?

30 years ago, each one of them would be considered left of center. By todays standards, they are all left or moderate right at best, and the extreme left would be those who act and believe as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer. Moderate leftists would be the Paul Ryans and John Boeners. In all honesty, I don't know that there is a true right of center politican in all of our federal government.

Wow, if Paul Ryan is a lefty to you......someone like Bernie Sanders must seem like the anti-christ he's so far left.

I don't advocate religious connotations on political ideology. Suffice it to say that I think people like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and the others like them should be removed from office. Hell, a lot of them should. We needs statesmen, people who will think of the benefit to the country and leave the aid of people to the states, where it rightly belongs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxes are constitutional. Why do you hate he constitution?

I don't hate anything. That's your schtick not mine.

Sooner or later enough has to be enough doesn't it?

Tell me how much of your income should be taken from you to "help" others?

My schtick?

I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.

I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

Define need first.

I don't think any able bodied person of average intelligence needs any help.

 

[Mojo2]

The GOP leadership has worked tirelessly to make their base believe American helping American is "socialism" and should be stopped. The very people helped by Social Security and Medicare believe getting government help is the road to disaster for this country. The GOP's misinformation techniques have worked so well, their base doesn't even understand that Medicare and Social Security are government programs and getting rid of government programs means disaster for them.

Republicans say we should look at Blue States to understand how all the welfare has hurt those states. Only the dollar drain from Blue States is going to Red States. The amount of money difference Red States receive from Blue States pales in comparison to what those in Blue States who are on welfare receive and is staggering.

If Red States were so self sufficient, they wouldn't be working overtime trying to lure Blue State workers to their states. They would train their own people. Only that would be (gasp) "socialism".

People don't want charity. Republicans insist they are better people because they imagine they give more to charity. Remember that story Paul Ryan plagiarized? About the little boy who did't want to be given school lunch? Well that's the thing. A little charity does nothing. Without the drain of money from Blue States to Red States, Blue States would have balanced budgets and would still be helping Blue State Citizens. It's because of that aid Blue States are able to give to their citizens that Red States are able to bleed money from those Blue States who earned it.

Perhaps we need some tough love and stop funding Red States. The only problem with that is the GOP leadership would simply let their middle class and poor die. We know that from the millions left off Medicare Expansion. That will probably cost 10,000 deaths a year in Red States.

I just got a flash of insight!

I have recently felt something about you to be familiar.

And I just recognized exactly why that is.

You remind me of Mario Van Peebles in this scene from the classic Clint Eastwood flick, "Heartbreak Ridge."

Though Recon platoons exist to provide support to a USMC Infantry Battalion, Maj. Powers uses the specialized and usually highly trained Recon platoon* as, basically, a punching bag for his regular troops.

You remind me of that punching bag we are well used to punching or the mole that we are accustomed to whacking all the time.





* - Marine Corps veterans: Please correct me if you find this info in error.

Thanks and Semper Fi.

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't hate anything. That's your schtick not mine.

Sooner or later enough has to be enough doesn't it?

Tell me how much of your income should be taken from you to "help" others?

My schtick?

I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.

I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

Define need first.

I don't think any able bodied person of average intelligence needs any help.

Define "able bodied"

Define "average intelligence"

Sometimes shit happens in life...even to good honest people. I believe we should have some sort of system to provide a safety net to those people to get them back on their feet. We can argue who does and does not deserve assistance all day long, but if you don't think anyone should ever receive any sort of help then we really have no need to continue this conversation.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Taxes are constitutional. Why do you hate he constitution?

I don't hate anything. That's your schtick not mine.



Sooner or later enough has to be enough doesn't it?



Tell me how much of your income should be taken from you to "help" others?

My schtick?



I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.



I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

Guns are protected as are indirect taxes. Income tax is a direct tax. Abolish all free trade agreements and return to using tariffs here in the US and you will see enough companies return here that jobs will return. Once the economy is back in place there will be plenty of charity to go around. As was the case in the early 20th century before the Great Depression.

 

[Darkwind]

My schtick?

I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.

I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

Define need first.

I don't think any able bodied person of average intelligence needs any help.

Define "able bodied"

Define "average intelligence"

Sometimes shit happens in life...even to good honest people. I believe we should have some sort of system to provide a safety net to those people to get them back on their feet. We can argue who does and does not deserve assistance all day long, but if you don't think anyone should ever receive any sort of help then we really have no need to continue this conversation.

A safety net lasts at best, 6 months. If it takes longer, then there needs to be laws and policies that help the person to do whatever it takes to get back to self sufficiency.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. People fall on hard times, and its no big thing to lend a hand and help them back onto their feet, brush them off and show a little compassion. After all, any one of us could end up in need someday.

But people are also expected to shake it off and get back into the game.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My schtick?

I'm just repeating the often rehashed reference of what is and is not constitutional. When it's guns, I'm reminded how they're protected by the constitution. When it's taxes, it's "theft by government". Seems like a double standard..schtick or no schtick.

I agree though, enough is enough. Show me a solution based on common sense that gets help to those who need it, prevents fraud and abuse and I'll gladly get behind it.

Define need first.

I don't think any able bodied person of average intelligence needs any help.

Define "able bodied"

Define "average intelligence"

Sometimes shit happens in life...even to good honest people. I believe we should have some sort of system to provide a safety net to those people to get them back on their feet. We can argue who does and does not deserve assistance all day long, but if you don't think anyone should ever receive any sort of help then we really have no need to continue this conversation.

I didn't say no one ever did I?

You said that. Just like you bandy the word hate around.

If you are able to work you don't need help.

If you get hurt sure while you are on the mend a little help is warranted.

If you get laid off and refuse to take a job because it doesn't pay as much as your old one then you're shit out of luck in my book.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's Election cycle so expect Dems to lie about who they are, what they did and what they intend to do.

Remember when Obama praised Free enterprise and Capitalism? Remember when Obama promised to go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb? Remember when Obama called debt "unpatriotic"? The things Dems say when campaigning.

"If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period"

 

[RDD_1210]

Define need first.

I don't think any able bodied person of average intelligence needs any help.

Define "able bodied"

Define "average intelligence"

Sometimes shit happens in life...even to good honest people. I believe we should have some sort of system to provide a safety net to those people to get them back on their feet. We can argue who does and does not deserve assistance all day long, but if you don't think anyone should ever receive any sort of help then we really have no need to continue this conversation.

A safety net lasts at best, 6 months. If it takes longer, then there needs to be laws and policies that help the person to do whatever it takes to get back to self sufficiency.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. People fall on hard times, and its no big thing to lend a hand and help them back onto their feet, brush them off and show a little compassion. After all, any one of us could end up in need someday.

But people are also expected to shake it off and get back into the game.

Fine, all of that makes sense. So let's talk about how we implement a system that makes sense, enacts restraints and get help to those who truly need it.

 

[Darkwind]

Define "able bodied"

Define "average intelligence"

Sometimes shit happens in life...even to good honest people. I believe we should have some sort of system to provide a safety net to those people to get them back on their feet. We can argue who does and does not deserve assistance all day long, but if you don't think anyone should ever receive any sort of help then we really have no need to continue this conversation.

A safety net lasts at best, 6 months. If it takes longer, then there needs to be laws and policies that help the person to do whatever it takes to get back to self sufficiency.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. People fall on hard times, and its no big thing to lend a hand and help them back onto their feet, brush them off and show a little compassion. After all, any one of us could end up in need someday.

But people are also expected to shake it off and get back into the game.

Fine, all of that makes sense. So let's talk about how we implement a system that makes sense, enacts restraints and get help to those who truly need it.

In order to do that, there has to be an agreed upon reference and a common understanding of the roles of the various governments in our country.

That begins with understanding how it is that a government person can verify the true need of an individual in help, and whether or not that verification best happens in an office hundreds or thousands of miles away.

In other words, to know who is in need, the process has to be done locally.

There also has to be agreement that you can't have it all.

 

[g5000]

....yawn.

Medicare | ObamaCare Watch

ObamaCare cuts a half-trillion dollars from Medicare over the next decade. These cuts are unsustainable and will lead to a reduction in the quality of care for seniors who rely on the program to secure access to needed medical services. The cuts in Medicare Advantage will impose steep costs on millions of Medicare beneficiaries, and will fall disproportionately on low income and minority seniors.

It is amusing to see the faux Right whining about Medicare cuts when it politically suits them to do so. Does anyone actually believe the faux Right is defending Medicare when the only Republican budget on the table would also make substantial cuts to Medicare funding?

Nope.

 

[g5000]

The GOP leadership has worked tirelessly to make their base believe American helping American is "socialism" and should be stopped. The very people helped by Social Security and Medicare believe getting government help is the road to disaster for this country. The GOP's misinformation techniques have worked so well, their base doesn't even understand that Medicare and Social Security are government programs and getting rid of government programs means disaster for them.

Republicans say we should look at Blue States to understand how all the welfare has hurt those states. Only the dollar drain from Blue States is going to Red States. The amount of money difference Red States receive from Blue States pales in comparison to what those in Blue States who are on welfare receive and is staggering.

If Red States were so self sufficient, they wouldn't be working overtime trying to lure Blue State workers to their states. They would train their own people. Only that would be (gasp) "socialism".

People don't want charity. Republicans insist they are better people because they imagine they give more to charity. Remember that story Paul Ryan plagiarized? About the little boy who did't want to be given school lunch? Well that's the thing. A little charity does nothing. Without the drain of money from Blue States to Red States, Blue States would have balanced budgets and would still be helping Blue State Citizens. It's because of that aid Blue States are able to give to their citizens that Red States are able to bleed money from those Blue States who earned it.

Perhaps we need some tough love and stop funding Red States. The only problem with that is the GOP leadership would simply let their middle class and poor die. We know that from the millions left off Medicare Expansion. That will probably cost 10,000 deaths a year in Red States.

I am going to have to carry slackers on my back for the rest of their lives. One third of the "involuntarily uninsured" are high school dropouts, and thanks to Obamacare they will receive insurance subsidies at my expense.

You bet your fucking sweet ass that is a national scandal.